t it be read
that day six months; a motion which was seconded by Mr. Pringle; both
objecting to the principle of the bill, as hostile to the constitution
and repugnant to the feelings of Christians. Mr. Macauley and Lord
Sandon supported, and Mr. Goulburn and Sir R. Inglis opposed the
measure. The third reading was carried in the commons by a majority of
one hundred and eight against thirty-one; but the bill experienced a
different fate in the house of lords. It passed a second reading; but
on the third reading its rejection was moved by the Bishop of Llandaff,
which was carried by ninety-eight against sixty-four: the bill was
consequently lost.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: NON-INTRUSION QUESTION, ETC.

On the 1st of May, the Duke of Argyle introduced a measure with
reference to the right of patronage in the church of Scotland: a
question which had been long the subject of controversy. In introducing
his bill, the noble duke, after referring to the history of the various
acts of the legislature affecting the right of patronage in the church
of Scotland, proceeded to read some letters from Drs. Gordon and
Chalmers, and others of the dominant party in the church, with the view
of showing that the total abolition of patronage, as by law established,
was not the means by which this party desired the settlement of the
existing differences. The object of the bill proposed, the noble
duke subsequently explained, was to give effect to the principle of
non-intrusion on the right of the congregation to give their approval or
dissent to the appointment of any presentee that might be offered them
by the patron. He felt convinced, he said, that unless some measure to
this effect were passed, the most lamentable consequences to the church
of Scotland would ensue, and there can be no doubt but a secession of
a large number of the members of the church would take place; while, if
the principle of non-intrusion were conceded, the surest means would
be taken to put an end to the agitation of those who were opposed to
patronage. Lord Aberdeen said that he wished to give full expression
to the genuine and honest feelings and wishes of the people in these
matters, but he could not give his support to a measure which might lead
to the monstrous consequence of compelling the presbytery to reject a
presentee, though he were objected to for no other reason than because
he had been presented, or because he had been compelled to take the oath
of